Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

Re: With Lance Armstrong confessing cheating, I pose you this question.

I don't know enough about cycling to say if he could or not. Come to think of it, I don't know enough about performance enhancing drugs to know if he could or not. I find his answer that he would not have interesting. Not because I believe him, but because if he does believe that, then it would logically validate the use of PEDs IN HIS MIND because after all the hard work, focus and strategizing, he still needed the PED to get him to the top. He also probably felt confirmed in his actions by ACTUALLY coming in first those seven times.

The converse of this is that if he felt that he could have won them without the PEDs, yet use them anyway to ensure victory, then I think he would have had major regrets about using the PEDs with the way his titles have been taken away and legacy tarnished.

I don't feel sorry for him...if he actually thought he needed the PEDs to win then he has no regrets.

What makes him an evil little sonofagun in my book is the lengths he went to to perpetuate his life of lives....a lot of people and organizations got burned

I do have to ask, how is the LIVESTRONG charity a sham of a charity?

__________________

Quote:

Muschamp said he doesn't have a 3 year or 5 year plan, his plan is to win now and decisions will be based on winning now.

Muschamp believes that recruiting within a five-hour radius of USC, "we can recruit good enough players to win the East every year."

Re: With Lance Armstrong confessing cheating, I pose you this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spur's Addiction

I think if all the riders were clean he would have won a few or at least one. Maybe a few.

But we'll never know. He kind of implied that out of the whole peleton of 200 riders there were maybe 5 that he knee that rode clean for sure.

I remember hearing this on Dan Patrick.
Can't recall the exact word for word, but it was something that if you disqualified everyone in one year that he finished in first, the person that was in 27th place (since that rider has not ever been caught mostly) would have won the Tour De France.

Re: With Lance Armstrong confessing cheating, I pose you this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schecter

He claimed to have doped up for every single Tour De France race, so I ask you this question Cockytalk, Would Lance Armstrong have won ANY Tour De France's had he not doped?

I think maybe ONE, MAYBE.

I highly doubt it. I watched quite a bit of those TDFs, and you have to understand the the winning margins were usually small. Not sure if you follow cycling, but in the big tours your team is 90% of the equation, as the team leader will be in their slipstream for almost the entire race except for the final big climbs in the mountain stages, (not counting 1 or 2 time trials.) A rider wins primarily because of time differences on mountain stages, usually on the last climb of the stage. Because his whole team doped to the max, they could ride together and deliver him to the big climbs relatively fresh and then he could unleash himself for a relatively short period of time. Other guys on other teams may have doped, but it was unorganized and pretty much amateur hour compared to Armstrong's team's doping. His team would routinely make it to the base of the last big climb with 3, 4, 5, or 6 guys, whereas his rivals would often end up alone long before. (Haha, that's pretty long. Sorry about that.)
[i]
There were actually some clean riders in that era, but Lance was directly involved in making sure they had no place in the sport. Just google "Christophe Basson" to see an example, or click on the linked article for more.http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/...nough_271686/2

Re: With Lance Armstrong confessing cheating, I pose you this question.

Maybe, he claims his comeback was clean (for whatever that's worth), but probably no one would have noticed anyway because without his multiple wins no one except for a niche would even know who won the tour.

I still don't think the doping is the story, because you have to be completely blinded to not know he cheated. It's the coverup and the intensity of it that is killing lance now.

I watched some of the interview, it was vague. It leads me to assume that he is going to try to get unbanned (word?) by cooperating in testimony and rolling over on everyone at all involved.

Re: With Lance Armstrong confessing cheating, I pose you this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GH

I don't know enough about cycling to say if he could or not. Come to think of it, I don't know enough about performance enhancing drugs to know if he could or not. I find his answer that he would not have interesting. Not because I believe him, but because if he does believe that, then it would logically validate the use of PEDs IN HIS MIND because after all the hard work, focus and strategizing, he still needed the PED to get him to the top. He also probably felt confirmed in his actions by ACTUALLY coming in first those seven times.

The converse of this is that if he felt that he could have won them without the PEDs, yet use them anyway to ensure victory, then I think he would have had major regrets about using the PEDs with the way his titles have been taken away and legacy tarnished.

I don't feel sorry for him...if he actually thought he needed the PEDs to win then he has no regrets.

What makes him an evil little sonofagun in my book is the lengths he went to to perpetuate his life of lives....a lot of people and organizations got burned

I do have to ask, how is the LIVESTRONG charity a sham of a charity?

I would think someone could possibly think that the LIVESTRONG charity could be a sham due to the fact that Lance founded and funded the charity and it grew in popularity due to both his cancer story and fame of winning 7 TDF's.

So maybe it comes down to a credibility issue? I dunno.

::sarcasm on::

Or maybe he's just so gullible and this is all some sick joke that he was a poor, defenseless victim of, and the PED's never existed?

Re: With Lance Armstrong confessing cheating, I pose you this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CockyInGA

I would think someone could possibly think that the LIVESTRONG charity could be a sham due to the fact that Lance founded and funded the charity and it grew in popularity due to both his cancer story and fame of winning 7 TDF's.

So maybe it comes down to a credibility issue? I dunno.

::sarcasm on::

Or maybe he's just so gullible and this is all some sick joke that he was a poor, defenseless victim of, and the PED's never existed?

::sarcasm off::

Lance was a cheating sham sure, but what happened to the money donated to LIVESTRONG?

Did it go where it was supposed to go?

If the money did, then how is the charity a sham?

__________________

Quote:

Muschamp said he doesn't have a 3 year or 5 year plan, his plan is to win now and decisions will be based on winning now.

Muschamp believes that recruiting within a five-hour radius of USC, "we can recruit good enough players to win the East every year."

Re: With Lance Armstrong confessing cheating, I pose you this question.

Would he have even needed to dope if he hadn't had cancer? As far as Livestrong goes it is an extremely useful site. I visit it regularly. It is governed by an independent board of directors as required by law.